Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
The Constitution of India has provisions for amending its various provisions, ensuring its relevance and adaptability to changing times. The amendment process involves a rigorous procedure, requiring either a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament or a simple majority plus ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Since its adoption in 1950, the Constitution has been amended over 100 times, addressing evolving needs and challenges faced by the country.
Examine the development of the Supreme Court’s theory of the Constitution’s fundamental structure as it was presented in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case. What are the main elements that make up the fundamental framework, and how has this concept restricted ...
Consider the differences between the authority granted by Article 368 to change a Constitution and the authority to create new ones or to replace the current one in its entirety. What ramifications does this divide have for law and politics?
The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land: The Amending Power under Article 368: Article 368 of thRead more
The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One
The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land:
The Amending Power under Article 368:
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
This power allows for specific changes or additions to be made to the existing constitutional provisions.
Amendments under Article 368 require a special majority in the Parliament (two-thirds of members present and voting, and an absolute majority of the total membership of each House).
Certain provisions of the Constitution, like the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution, are considered unamendable under this power.
The Power to Make New Constitutions or Completely Replace the Existing One:
This power goes beyond the scope of Article 368 and allows for the creation of an entirely new Constitution or the complete replacement of the existing one.
This power is typically exercised by a Constituent Assembly or a similar body with the specific mandate to draft a new Constitution.
The process of making a new Constitution or replacing the existing one is not subject to the constraints of Article 368 and usually involves a more extensive and involved process.
It may require the dissolution of the existing political order and the establishment of a new one.
Legal and Political Implications of this Distinction:
Scope of Changes: The amending power under Article 368 is limited to making specific changes or additions to the existing constitutional provisions. In contrast, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one allows for a more comprehensive and fundamental overhaul of the entire legal and political framework.
Degree of Difficulty: Amending the Constitution under Article 368 is generally considered a more straightforward process, as it requires a special majority in the Parliament. Creating a new Constitution or replacing the existing one, on the other hand, typically involves a more complex and challenging process, often requiring the convening of a Constituent Assembly or a similar body.
Preservation of Continuity: Amendments under Article 368 aim to preserve the overall continuity and stability of the existing constitutional framework, while the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may involve a more fundamental disruption of the political and legal order.
Implications for Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has interpreted the basic structure of the Constitution as being unamendable under Article 368. However, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may potentially allow for a reconsideration of the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Political Significance: The power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one is typically associated with significant political events, such as the creation of a new nation or a major constitutional crisis. The exercise of this power can have far-reaching political implications, potentially leading to the reconfiguration of the power dynamics and the establishment of a new political order.
In summary, the distinction between the amending power under Article 368 and the power to make new Constitutions or completely replace the existing one lies in the scope, degree of difficulty, preservation of continuity, implications for fundamental rights and the basic structure, and the political significance associated with each process. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal and political dynamics of constitutional change in India.
What has been the actual application of the Constitution’s modifying provisions since 1950? Give a summary of the most significant constitutional changes that have been approved and talk about the sociopolitical settings and effects of each.
Since the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950, several amendments have been made to address various socio-political contexts and challenges. These amendments have played a crucial role in shaping and evolving the constitutional framework of India. Let's provide an overview of some major consRead more
Since the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950, several amendments have been made to address various socio-political contexts and challenges. These amendments have played a crucial role in shaping and evolving the constitutional framework of India. Let’s provide an overview of some major constitutional amendments, along with their socio-political contexts and impacts.
First Amendment Act, 1951:
Context: This amendment was primarily introduced to address legal challenges to land reforms and to curtail freedom of speech and expression.
Impact: It inserted reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression to protect public order, decency, and morality. It also validated land reform laws, ensuring their constitutionality.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1971:
Context: This amendment was introduced to counter the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Golaknath case, which held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights.
Impact: It amended Article 13 and reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. It restored Parliament’s authority to amend fundamental rights.
Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976:
Context: This amendment was passed during the period of the Emergency (1975-1977) and aimed to consolidate power in the hands of the government.
Impact: It made significant changes to the Constitution, including asserting the supremacy of Parliament, limiting judicial review, and diluting fundamental rights. It was widely criticized for its authoritarian nature.
Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978:
Context: This amendment was introduced to reverse some of the changes made by the Forty-Second Amendment Act and restore certain fundamental rights.
Impact: It restored the power of judicial review and limited the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It reinforced fundamental rights and curtailed the powers of the government.
Forty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1982:
Context: This amendment was introduced to extend reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Parliament and state legislatures.
Impact: It extended the reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) and state legislatures for another ten years, ensuring representation and social justice.
Seventy-Third Amendment Act, 1992:
Context: This amendment was passed to strengthen local self-government institutions and promote decentralization.
Impact: It added the provisions for Panchayats (village councils) and conferred them with constitutional status. It aimed to empower local communities, enhance grassroots democracy, and promote rural development.
Ninety-Ninth Amendment Act, 2014:
Context: This amendment was introduced to facilitate the Land Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh.
Impact: It enabled the exchange of territories and resolved border disputes between India and Bangladesh. It demonstrated the flexibility of the amendment process in addressing geopolitical challenges.
These are just a few examples of significant constitutional amendments in India. Each amendment reflects the socio-political context of its time and has had varying impacts on governance, fundamental rights, social justice, and decentralization. The amendment process has allowed the Indian Constitution to adapt and respond to the evolving needs of the nation, ensuring its relevance and vitality.
Talk about the importance of civil society participation and public dialogue in the amending process. How much can the public and interest groups affect the discussion and decision-making surrounding a proposed constitutional amendment?
Public discourse and civil society engagement play a crucial role in the amendment process of a constitution. They provide avenues for citizens and interest groups to voice their opinions, participate in debates, and influence the outcome of proposed constitutional amendments. However, the extent ofRead more
Public discourse and civil society engagement play a crucial role in the amendment process of a constitution. They provide avenues for citizens and interest groups to voice their opinions, participate in debates, and influence the outcome of proposed constitutional amendments. However, the extent of influence can vary depending on various factors. Let’s discuss the role of public discourse and civil society engagement and the ways citizens and interest groups can impact the debate and outcome of constitutional amendments.
Creating Awareness and Shaping Public Opinion:
Public discourse and civil society engagement help create awareness about proposed constitutional amendments among the general public. Through various platforms such as media, public meetings, social media, and advocacy campaigns, citizens and interest groups can disseminate information, explain the implications of amendments, and shape public opinion. This awareness-raising process is crucial for generating interest, mobilizing support, and fostering informed debates.
Advocacy and Lobbying:
Interest groups and civil society organizations often engage in advocacy and lobbying to influence the debate and outcome of constitutional amendments. They present their perspectives, research, and recommendations to lawmakers, participate in parliamentary committee hearings, and provide expert opinions. By presenting evidence-based arguments and mobilizing support, these groups can influence the decision-making process and shape the content and scope of amendments.
Petitions, Memoranda, and Public Consultations:
Citizens and interest groups can actively participate in the amendment process by submitting petitions, memoranda, and representations to lawmakers, parliamentary committees, and constitutional review bodies. These documents highlight concerns, propose amendments, and provide suggestions for improving the proposed changes. Public consultations and hearings enable citizens and interest groups to directly engage with decision-makers, express their views, and influence the debate and drafting process.
Litigation and Judicial Review:
In some cases, citizens and interest groups may resort to litigation and seek judicial intervention to challenge the constitutionality of proposed amendments. By approaching the courts, they can bring their concerns to the attention of the judiciary and argue against amendments that they perceive as infringing upon fundamental rights or the basic structure of the constitution. Judicial review provides an avenue for independent scrutiny and can significantly impact the outcome of constitutional amendments.
Grassroots Movements and Protests:
Citizens and interest groups can organize grassroots movements, protests, and demonstrations to express their dissent or support for proposed constitutional amendments. These movements serve as a means to mobilize public opinion, raise awareness, and put pressure on lawmakers and the government to consider alternative perspectives or modifications to the proposed amendments. Such grassroots movements can influence the political environment and create a momentum for change.
It’s important to note that the influence of citizens and interest groups in the amendment process depends on the openness of the political system, institutional mechanisms for public participation, and the responsiveness of policymakers. The impact can vary from case to case, and the final outcome is ultimately determined by the deliberations and decisions of elected representatives and the constitutional processes in place.
In conclusion, public discourse and civil society engagement play a vital role in the amendment process by shaping public opinion, advocating for interests, providing expert opinions, and participating in deliberations. While citizens and interest groups can influence the debate and outcome of proposed constitutional amendments through various means, the degree of influence depends on multiple factors and the dynamics of the particular political and institutional context.
See lessExamine the arguments for and against the amendatory power’s incorporation into the Constitution’s basic framework critically. Which sides of this argument are making, and how have the courts addressed this matter?
The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides. ArgRead more
The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution
The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides.
Arguments in Favor of Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:
Preserving the Fundamental Character of the Constitution: Proponents argue that the ability to amend the Constitution is a fundamental feature that shapes the character and identity of the Constitution. Excluding it from the basic structure could undermine the Constitution’s integrity and stability.
Preventing Arbitrary Amendments: Incorporating the amendatory power within the basic structure could prevent arbitrary or unchecked amendments that could undermine the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.
Ensuring Meaningful Deliberation: Treating the amendatory power as part of the basic structure would require a higher threshold for constitutional changes, ensuring more meaningful deliberation and consensus-building.
Safeguarding the Constituent Power: The argument is that the constituent power, which is the ultimate source of the Constitution’s legitimacy, should not be restricted or diminished by excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure.
Arguments Against Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:
Flexibility and Adaptability: Opponents argue that excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure would allow for the Constitution to be more flexible and adaptable to changing societal and political needs.
Preventing Constitutional Ossification: Limiting the amendatory power could lead to the Constitution becoming ossified and unable to respond to evolving circumstances, undermining its relevance and legitimacy.
Respecting the Will of the People: There is an argument that the people, through their elected representatives, should have the power to amend the Constitution, and that this power should not be unduly restricted.
Judicial Overreach: Concerns have been raised that including the amendatory power within the basic structure could be seen as judicial overreach, as it would place significant limitations on the Parliament’s constitutional amending power.
The Courts’ Approach to the Issue:
The Supreme Court of India has had a complex and evolving approach to the issue of the amendatory power and the basic structure doctrine.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court held that the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was subject to the basic structure doctrine, meaning that certain core features of the Constitution could not be amended.
However, the Court did not explicitly include the amendatory power itself within the basic structure.
In subsequent cases, such as the Minerva Mills case (1980) and the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), the Court has further elaborated on the relationship between the amendatory power and the basic structure.
The Court has generally upheld the view that the basic structure doctrine applies to the exercise of the amendatory power, but it has not provided a definitive and comprehensive resolution to the debate.
The debate continues, with legal scholars and constitutional experts offering different perspectives on the appropriate balance between the need for constitutional flexibility and the preservation of the Constitution’s fundamental character and values.
Examine the differences between India’s amendment processes and those of other powerful democracies like the US and the UK. What can be learned from these comparative assessments, and what are the points of similarity and difference?
Amendment Procedures in India, United States, and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis India Procedure: Amendments to the Indian Constitution are governed by Article 368. Initiation: Amendments can be initiated in either House of Parliament and require a special majority (i.e., majority of the totRead more
Amendment Procedures in India, United States, and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis
India
Procedure: Amendments to the Indian Constitution are governed by Article 368.
Initiation: Amendments can be initiated in either House of Parliament and require a special majority (i.e., majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
Ratification: Some amendments require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Amendment Scope: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but subject to the basic structure doctrine.
United States
Procedure: Amendments are proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Ratification: Amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions.
Amendment Scope: Amendments can modify any part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
United Kingdom
Procedure: The UK does not have a codified constitution; amendments are made through Acts of Parliament.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament has supreme authority and can amend laws, including constitutional conventions.
Constitutional Conventions: While not legally binding, conventions limit parliamentary power in practice, such as the Salisbury Convention (House of Lords does not oppose government manifesto commitments).
Similarities and Differences
Initiation: Both India and the US require a supermajority to propose amendments, whereas the UK allows amendments through simple majority in Parliament.
Scope: India and the US have formal procedures to amend their written constitutions, whereas the UK’s constitution is flexible and evolves through Acts of Parliament and conventions.
Ratification: The US requires ratification by states, which is akin to India’s requirement for state legislature ratification in certain cases.
Amendment Flexibility: India’s basic structure doctrine restricts amendments that alter core principles, while the US and UK have more flexible amendment processes, albeit with different procedural requirements.
Insights
Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The US and UK systems allow for more flexible amendments, enabling adaptation to changing circumstances more readily. In contrast, India’s rigidity, especially with the basic structure doctrine, ensures stability but limits swift constitutional changes.
Democratic Processes: All three systems reflect the importance of democratic consensus in amending foundational laws, albeit through different procedural mechanisms.
Judicial Review: India’s judicial review power to strike down amendments conflicting with the basic structure highlights a robust check on parliamentary sovereignty, absent in the US and UK.
Historical Context: The US amendment process, designed to prevent hasty changes, contrasts with the UK’s reliance on conventions and evolving interpretations.
Conclusion
Comparative analysis of amendment procedures in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom reveals diverse approaches balancing constitutional stability with adaptability. India’s structured approach guards against rapid changes, while the US and UK systems allow for more responsive updates. Insights from these comparisons underscore the significance of balancing democratic principles with institutional safeguards to uphold constitutional integrity and adaptability in diverse democratic contexts.
Talk about the function of judicial review about constitutional modifications. How far can the courts examine whether a Parliamentary amendment is constitutionally valid?
Judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments refers to the power of the courts to examine and potentially invalidate amendments to the constitution if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure or core principles of the constitution. This concept is pRead more
Judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments refers to the power of the courts to examine and potentially invalidate amendments to the constitution if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure or core principles of the constitution. This concept is particularly significant in constitutional democracies where the judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution and ensures that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed their constitutional limits.
Role of Judicial Review in Constitutional Amendments
Guardian of the Constitution:
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the supremacy of the constitution. It ensures that amendments do not undermine the basic structure or fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution.
Scope of Judicial Review:
In many constitutional systems, including India, the courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments.
The scope of judicial review varies, but generally includes:
Procedural Validity: Ensuring that the amendment process followed constitutional procedures (e.g., majority requirements, ratification procedures).
Substantive Validity: Assessing whether the amendment violates fundamental rights, the basic structure of the constitution, or other core principles.
Basic Structure Doctrine:
In India, the concept of the basic structure doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This doctrine asserts that while Parliament has the power to amend the constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or fundamental features.
The courts have used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that they deemed to be in conflict with the core principles of the constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.
Limitations on Judicial Review:
While courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments, there are some limitations:
Political Question Doctrine: Courts may refrain from intervening in purely political matters or issues best left to the discretion of elected representatives.
Respect for Legislative Authority: There is a presumption of constitutionality, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere with amendments unless they clearly violate the constitution.
Balancing Act:
Judicial review of constitutional amendments involves a delicate balance between respecting the authority of elected representatives and ensuring the constitution’s integrity and stability.
Courts typically exercise restraint and intervene only when amendments clearly undermine the constitution’s basic structure or violate fundamental rights.
Examples and Applications
India: The Indian Supreme Court has used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that sought to alter the fundamental framework of the constitution, such as attempts to curtail judicial review or dilute fundamental rights.
United States: In the US, amendments to the constitution are subject to judicial review, with the Supreme Court assessing their conformity with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional principles.
Conclusion
Judicial review of constitutional amendments serves as a vital check and balance in constitutional democracies. It ensures that amendments are consistent with the constitution’s foundational principles and do not undermine essential rights and freedoms. While courts exercise caution and respect legislative authority, they play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity and enduring relevance of the constitution in the face of changing societal and political dynamics.
Examine the claim that more frequent amendments to the Constitution are necessary to keep it current with the changing demands of the country. What possible advantages and disadvantages come with a more engaged culture of amendments?
The argument that the Constitution should be amended more frequently to keep pace with the evolving needs of the nation is based on the premise that societal, economic, and political landscapes change over time, necessitating updates to the foundational legal document. Here, we assess this argumentRead more
The argument that the Constitution should be amended more frequently to keep pace with the evolving needs of the nation is based on the premise that societal, economic, and political landscapes change over time, necessitating updates to the foundational legal document. Here, we assess this argument by examining the potential risks and benefits of a more active amendment culture.
Benefits of a More Active Amendment Culture
Relevance and Adaptability:
Addressing Contemporary Issues: Frequent amendments can help address emerging issues such as technological advancements, environmental concerns, and changing social norms.
Reflecting Current Values: As societal values evolve, constitutional amendments can help enshrine these changes, making the Constitution more relevant to contemporary society.
Democratic Responsiveness:
Public Participation: A more active amendment culture can encourage greater public engagement and participation in the democratic process, fostering a sense of ownership and involvement.
Policy Innovations: It allows for the incorporation of innovative policies and governance models that can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government.
Rectifying Anomalies:
Correcting Flaws: Amendments can rectify ambiguities, outdated provisions, and legal anomalies that may have been overlooked during the original drafting or that have become apparent over time.
Judicial Clarifications: They can address issues raised by judicial interpretations that may have strayed from the original intent of the framers or that need reconsideration due to changed circumstances.
Risks of a More Active Amendment Culture
Stability and Continuity:
Constitutional Stability: Frequent amendments can undermine the stability and continuity of the Constitution, leading to a perception of fluidity and unpredictability in the legal framework.
Erosion of Foundational Principles: There is a risk that the core principles and values of the Constitution may be eroded through frequent changes, potentially destabilizing the foundational legal and moral fabric of the nation.
Politicization of Amendments:
Political Manipulation: Amendments can be driven by short-term political interests rather than long-term national interests, leading to politicization and potential abuse of the amendment process.
Majoritarianism: Frequent amendments may reflect the will of the majority, potentially marginalizing minority views and interests, thereby undermining the principle of inclusive governance.
Administrative and Legal Challenges:
Implementation Issues: Constant changes to the Constitution can create administrative and legal challenges in implementation, leading to confusion and inefficiency in governance.
Judicial Overload: The judiciary may be overwhelmed with cases interpreting new amendments, leading to increased litigation and potential delays in justice delivery.
Dilution of Rigorous Debate:
Superficial Reforms: The pressure to keep pace with evolving needs may lead to superficial or poorly thought-out amendments, bypassing rigorous debate and scrutiny.
Quality of Legislation: The quality of legislative processes may decline if amendments are rushed without thorough consideration of their long-term implications.
Analyze how regional interests and political parties influenced the amending process. What impact have regional and party politics had on the approval or rejection of proposed constitutional amendments?
Political parties and regional interests play a critical role in shaping the constitutional amendment process in India. The dynamics of party politics and regional considerations significantly influence whether proposed amendments are passed or rejected. Here’s an examination of these influences: RoRead more
Political parties and regional interests play a critical role in shaping the constitutional amendment process in India. The dynamics of party politics and regional considerations significantly influence whether proposed amendments are passed or rejected. Here’s an examination of these influences:
Role of Political Parties in the Amendment Process
Majority Control:
Parliamentary Majority: The ability of a political party or coalition to control a majority in both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) is crucial for passing constitutional amendments. This majority often reflects the political strength and agenda of the ruling party.
Party Discipline: Political parties often enforce strict discipline during voting on amendments, ensuring that party members vote according to the party line. This can streamline the passage of amendments when the ruling party has a clear majority.
Political Agendas:
Policy Objectives: Parties use constitutional amendments to advance their policy objectives and ideological goals. For example, the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency period under Indira Gandhi’s government reflected the centralizing tendencies of the Congress party at the time.
Electoral Promises: Amendments can also be driven by electoral promises made by political parties to their constituencies, seeking to fulfill commitments made during campaigns.
Opposition Strategy:
Blocking Amendments: Opposition parties can block or delay amendments by mobilizing their members and leveraging their presence in Parliament. The failure to pass the Women’s Reservation Bill in 2010, which sought to reserve 33% of seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women, illustrates how opposition and lack of consensus can hinder amendments.
Negotiations and Compromises: Amendments often require negotiation and compromise with opposition parties to secure the necessary majority, particularly in the Rajya Sabha where regional and opposition parties might have significant influence.
Influence of Regional Interests
Regional Parties:
State-Specific Concerns: Regional parties prioritize the interests of their respective states and regions. They can exert considerable influence over amendments, especially those that impact regional autonomy, resources, and powers. For example, the opposition by regional parties played a role in stalling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill until concerns over revenue-sharing and state autonomy were addressed.
Coalition Politics: In coalition governments, regional parties often hold the balance of power. Their support or opposition can be decisive for the passage of amendments. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments have had to navigate regional interests to secure support for constitutional changes.
Federal Structure:
Protecting State Interests: Amendments that potentially infringe upon state powers or autonomy face strong resistance from regional parties and state governments. The 73rd and 74th Amendments, which aimed to strengthen local self-government through Panchayati Raj Institutions and urban local bodies, faced initial resistance from some states concerned about losing control over local governance.
Case Studies of Amendments Influenced by Political and Regional Dynamics
42nd Amendment (1976):
Context: Passed during the Emergency period, this amendment is often referred to as a “mini-Constitution” due to its extensive changes. It reflected the centralizing agenda of the Congress party and was passed with little opposition due to the suspension of normal democratic processes.
Impact: It led to significant changes, including the curtailment of judicial review powers and the extension of the Lok Sabha’s term. Many of its provisions were later reversed by the 44th Amendment in 1978 following the restoration of democratic norms.
GST Amendment (101st Amendment, 2016):
Regional Negotiations: The passage of the GST Bill required extensive negotiations with state governments and regional parties to address concerns over revenue-sharing and compensation mechanisms. The GST Council, a federal body, was established to facilitate this cooperation.
Women’s Reservation Bill:
Political Opposition: Despite broad public support, the bill faced opposition from various political parties concerned about its impact on male-dominated electoral politics and the representation of specific social groups.
See lessEvaluate the arguments in favor of making the amendment process more flexible versus keeping it more rigid. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach, and how do they balance the need for stability and adaptability of the ...
ARTICLE 368: provides power and procedure to Parliament for constitutional amendments. Supreme Court vs Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) evolved the basic structure of doctrine and consolidated the balance between rigidity and flexibility. Arguments of the Petitioners: They argued that fundamentalRead more
ARTICLE 368: provides power and procedure to Parliament for constitutional amendments.
Supreme Court vs Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) evolved the basic structure of doctrine and consolidated the balance between rigidity and flexibility.
Arguments of the Petitioners: They argued that fundamental rights were violated. He pleaded to the court to receive recourse.
Flexible Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Rigid Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Balance Approach: Maintains core principle of rigidity, allows flexibility elsewhere. Periodic review ensures relevance, reflecting societal needs for resilience and responsiveness.
Thus, balances the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution.
See less
The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament's power to amend the ConstitutionRead more
The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by asserting that certain essential features or principles of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments.
Evolution of the Doctrine
Background to Kesavananda Bharati Case:
The case arose in the context of constitutional amendments made by the Parliament that sought to curtail judicial review and expand its own powers.
The central issue was whether there are any inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, through a historic 7-6 majority decision, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not unlimited.
The Court asserted that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution that form its core foundation.
Key Features of the Basic Structure:
The exact components of the basic structure have not been exhaustively defined but typically include:
Supremacy of the Constitution: Including the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws and organs of the state.
Democratic and Republican Nature: Including free and fair elections, representative democracy, and republican form of government.
Secularism: India’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution.
Federalism: The distribution of powers between the Centre and the states.
Separation of Powers: The division of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality.
Impact on Parliament’s Amending Power:
The Kesavananda Bharati case established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that violates or destroys its basic structure.
Amendments that seek to alter the basic structure can be subjected to judicial review, and if found to be in conflict with the basic structure, they can be declared unconstitutional and void.
Limitations Imposed on Parliament
Judicial Review: The doctrine empowers the judiciary to review constitutional amendments, ensuring they do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.
Consensus Building: Parliament must garner broad consensus and justify any amendments that might impact the basic structure, fostering a more deliberative and careful approach to constitutional changes.
Stability and Continuity: The doctrine provides stability and continuity to the constitutional framework, preventing abrupt or radical changes that could undermine the foundational principles of the Republic.
Criticisms and Interpretations
Scope of Basic Structure: Critics argue that the doctrine’s scope remains vague, leading to potential judicial overreach or subjectivity in determining what constitutes the basic structure.
Impact on Democratic Processes: Some argue that the doctrine limits the democratic will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.
Conclusion
See lessThe doctrine of the basic structure, as evolved through the Kesavananda Bharati case, stands as a bulwark against arbitrary constitutional amendments that threaten the foundational principles of India’s democracy. It has shaped constitutional interpretation and limited the Parliament’s amending power by affirming that certain core features of the Constitution are sacrosanct and cannot be altered without judicial scrutiny and justification. This doctrine ensures the enduring resilience and integrity of India’s constitutional framework while balancing the need for flexibility and adaptability in response to evolving societal needs and challenges.